 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, none of it has happened. So their timeline sucks...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever virtues the film has as an attempt to tell a coherent kind of story (which 2001 didn't) were undermined by Hyams sledgehammer dosage of politics that became dated in 1989.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love the letters on the screen telling us what is happening! Like they were compensating for 2001's ambiguous ending.
Very subtle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw this back-to-back with 2001, and in comparison 2010 seemed more than a little mundane. Or, depending on one's point of view, much less pretentious. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seemed a bit careless of Bowman to destroy Max's pod when he was exiting the monolith. But yeah, I love the film. Too bad the dates have come and gone....the problem with having any scifi with a year in the title.(SPACE 1999 anyone?)
Hyams also used the wrong Ligeti cue for the monolith (Lux Aeterna instead of Requiem).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You realize the movie was based on Clarke's book? And futurist Clarke didn't foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union, either.
Try re-reading the book. There is no World War III confrontation over Central America hanging over the proceedings. That was entirely Hyams' invention. Much as I'm not fan of 2001, I at least give Kubrick credit for not being overt in the US-Russia competition in the space station scene, which had the long-term effect of not making the scene dated as a result of 1989.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 2, 2012 - 6:51 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
henry
(Member)
|
Hi guys! Some of the things I like about the movie is the cast, and the movie kept me interested, and I like the optimistic ending, "Something wonderful is going to happen". I'm a sucker for a happy ending. Also, it explained some things from the first movie, which I also love but didn't understand. The first time I saw this movie was in 9th grade science class, I enjoyed it then too. Again, I thought Scheider and Lithgow were great. On a side note, 2001 is one of my co-worker's favorite film, but he didn't care for 2010 that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also love happy endings because i believe if not here, somewhere there will be a good conclusion made of honest justice, but it may not really be the end but the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought they should've had William Sylvester (who was still around I think) reprise his role as Floyd and have Scheider play another character (for continuity's sake)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember that in the book that published early primitive e-mail exchanges between Clarke and Hyams, Clarke mentioned that he'd heard from Sylvester but that he didn't think this was part of a pitch to get his old part again, adding that he was "semi-retired" at that point. Frankly, I don't think that was a viable option since Floyd is the central character of the book and you couldn't have an unknown in the part.
I do give Hyams credit for remembering the character of Floyd's daughter from 2001 when Floyd mentions he has a daughter who's 17 now. But the biggest plot hole Hyams created was when Floyd indignantly declares, "I never authorized anyone to tell HAL about the monolith!" But the video message Bowman finds from Floyd after he deactivates HAL reveals otherwise. That alas, would not have squared with Hyams' blatant political message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
